From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 3 7:41:21 2000 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 3 07:41:19 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hda.hda.com (host65.hda.com [63.104.68.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F37B37B400 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:41:18 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dufault@localhost) by hda.hda.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA61923 for hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:48:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dufault) From: Peter Dufault Message-Id: <200012031548.KAA61923@hda.hda.com> Subject: Arg! Siginfo and pthreads again To: hackers@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:48:17 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: dufault@hda.hda.com Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Again I've forgotten that SIGINFO dumps the pthread info and created several gigabytes of /tmp files: > rt% rm /tmp/uthread* > /bin/rm: Argument list too long. I don't consider it bad form to use SIGINFO to see if processes are still around without first installing a SIGINFO handler. Am I the only one ever burnt by this? Do other user-space thread systems handle this similarly? Maybe an info thread can block at an info fifo in conjunction with a "psthread" program. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message